BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting Obama's citizen...

There are 239644 comments on the Chicago Tribune story from Jan 8, 2009, titled BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting Obama's citizen.... In it, Chicago Tribune reports that:

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Friday whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama 's U.S. citizenship, a continuation of a New Jersey case embraced by some opponents of Obama's ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Chicago Tribune.

Dale

Wichita, KS

#185044 Feb 8, 2014
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry Dufus, but naturalization does not 'strip' anyone's citizenship. No exception. Renunciation is between the alien and the foreign government, which may not accept it. Thus the naturalized citizen can be a dual citizen.
LMAO!!! Looks like we are stuck on the Dual-Citizenship status of Obama and as we all know a NBC has only one allegiance.
Art 2, Sect. I, para. 5, does not state a Naturalized citizen, nor does it state a Dual-citizen, both have questionable allegiance, this is why they are not authorized to be POTUS.
Dale

Wichita, KS

#185045 Feb 8, 2014
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>The allegiance of a person born on US soil is to the US, regardless of foreign citizenship law, which has no force or effect within the US. What part of no force or effect cannot Dale comprehend?
LMAO!!! At the moment of birth Obama's citizenship and allegiance was to his father's country and the US government can't strip that away, unless requested by him. This brings us back to the same old thing, a dual-citizenship is no better than a naturalized citizenship, neither are NBCs
Dale

Wichita, KS

#185046 Feb 8, 2014
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry but foreign citizenship law does not bind the person born in the US. The US is governed by US law as it is a sovereign nation.
LMAO!!!“Nor can it be doubted that it is the inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship.”(Ark v. US)

Looks like we are back to the Dual-Citizenship, with that said, we can go back to who will be POTUS, only a NBC and as we all know a NBC does not have any foreign influence/allegiance.
Dale

Wichita, KS

#185047 Feb 8, 2014
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>Dale does not comprehend that no one is subject to Play Law.
LMAO!!! I love it when you post "Play Law" this means you are out of steam!!!!
Dale

Wichita, KS

#185048 Feb 8, 2014
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>Ted Cruz was born a Canadian in Canada and under Canadian jurisdiction. But under US statute he acquired US citizenship. No Dufus, citizenship and jurisdiction are not the same.
LMAOI!!! Cruz has a long row to hoe , not only was he born in Canada, he was also born a citizen of Cuba. Cruz for POTUS, I don't think so, he is only a statutory citizen, not a NBC.
I like the way you arguing against yourself, citizenship in a country automatically burdens you with the allegiance thingy. Who was that guy that said, citizenship and allegiance are inseparable?

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#185050 Feb 8, 2014
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! Looks like we are stuck on the Dual-Citizenship status of Obama and as we all know a NBC has only one allegiance.
Art 2, Sect. I, para. 5, does not state a Naturalized citizen, nor does it state a Dual-citizen, both have questionable allegiance, this is why they are not authorized to be POTUS.
Nor does it state "one play law allegiance"

Moron.

In fact, it does not state "allegiance" at all.

It states "natural born citizen".

And "natural born" meant, born on the soil.

Sorry, Dufus.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry Dufus, but naturalization does not 'strip' anyone's citizenship. No exception. Renunciation is between the alien and the foreign government, which may not accept it. Thus the naturalized citizen can be a dual citizen.
Dale

Wichita, KS

#185051 Feb 8, 2014
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
It is Dufus Dale's problem that a treaty cannot create extra-constitutional powers. If aliens are not "under the jurisdiction of the Constitution" as Dufus says, then no treaty could create such extra-constitutional power wherein the US would have jurisdiction, as any treaty is subservient to the supreme law of the constitution.
Play law breaks down again and again. It doesn't work.
<quoted text>
LMAO!!! All though you post is very juvenile, for a treaty to grant an alien the privileges of the US Constitution would grant him citizenship, without the process of naturalization.
Dale

Wichita, KS

#185052 Feb 8, 2014
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Nor does it state "one play law allegiance"
Moron.
In fact, it does not state "allegiance" at all.
It states "natural born citizen".
And "natural born" meant, born on the soil.
Sorry, Dufus.
<quoted text>
LMAO!!! You lose again!!!

......to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.

With Obama being a dual-citizen, guess this puts a crimp in your post, but according to the above he isn't even a citizen.

See you are over a barrel, the frames of the 14th call him an alien, Ark v. US made him a dual-citizen and the Bancroft Treaties are unenforceable.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#185053 Feb 8, 2014
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAOI!!! Cruz has a long row to hoe , not only was he born in Canada, he was also born a citizen of Cuba. Cruz for POTUS, I don't think so, he is only a statutory citizen, not a NBC.
I like the way you arguing against yourself, citizenship in a country automatically burdens you with the allegiance thingy. Who was that guy that said, citizenship and allegiance are inseparable?
Huh? Where did I say he was NBC? Where did I say NBC had anything to do with your bogus Play Law?

Who was that founder who said citizenship and allegiance are equivalent? Dufus Dale.
Dufus Dale forgets about natural allegiance per common law from which natural born citizenship stems in the United States. As James Madison stated, "but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States."

Got a clue what "it is what applies in the United States" means?

BTW, MORON, being born in Hawaii, "burdens you with the allegiance thingy" in the US only per US allegiance. While in the US, a person born in the US is not "burdened" by any putative foreign allegiance, because foreign law has no force or effect in the United States. Got a clue what "no force or effect" means?
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>Ted Cruz was born a Canadian in Canada and under Canadian jurisdiction. But under US statute he acquired US citizenship. No Dufus, citizenship and jurisdiction are not the same.
Dale

Wichita, KS

#185054 Feb 8, 2014
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Nor does it state "one play law allegiance"
Moron.
In fact, it does not state "allegiance" at all.
It states "natural born citizen".
And "natural born" meant, born on the soil.
Sorry, Dufus.
<quoted text>
LMAO!!! You will deny it, but even you have stated that a NBC has only one allegiance!!! Go and deny it, then I will know what you are, like I didn't know! Hahahaha!!!!

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#185056 Feb 8, 2014
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! All though you post is very juvenile, for a treaty to grant an alien the privileges of the US Constitution would grant him citizenship, without the process of naturalization.
Why don't you learn how to write a sentence?

The simple fact is that if the US government does not have the authority under the constitution to have jurisdiction over aliens in the US, then a treaty cannot create such power because treaties are subservient to the Constitution and cannot create extra-Constitutional powers.

You are simply FOS on so many levels it stinks to high heaven.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
It is Dufus Dale's problem that a treaty cannot create extra-constitutional powers. If aliens are not "under the jurisdiction of the Constitution" as Dufus says, then no treaty could create such extra-constitutional power wherein the US would have jurisdiction, as any treaty is subservient to the supreme law of the constitution.
Play law breaks down again and again. It doesn't work.
Dale

Wichita, KS

#185057 Feb 8, 2014
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Huh? Where did I say he was NBC? Where did I say NBC had anything to do with your bogus Play Law?
Who was that founder who said citizenship and allegiance are equivalent? Dufus Dale.
Dufus Dale forgets about natural allegiance per common law from which natural born citizenship stems in the United States. As James Madison stated, "but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States."
Got a clue what "it is what applies in the United States" means?
BTW, MORON, being born in Hawaii, "burdens you with the allegiance thingy" in the US only per US allegiance. While in the US, a person born in the US is not "burdened" by any putative foreign allegiance, because foreign law has no force or effect in the United States. Got a clue what "no force or effect" means?
<quoted text>
LMAO!!! You haven't a clue what happen in 1866, do you? You really need a good brain douche!!
Dale

Wichita, KS

#185058 Feb 8, 2014
Grand Birther wrote:
Breaking News: Is Google Obama’s New IRS? Google Takes Down #1 Birther Site Alleging Violations of TOS
http://giveusliberty1776.blogspot.com/
YES, SHEEPLE ARE SCARED!
LMAO!!! The silly liberal tools can't stand the heat!!!

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#185059 Feb 8, 2014
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! You lose again!!!
......to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.
With Obama being a dual-citizen, guess this puts a crimp in your post, but according to the above he isn't even a citizen.
See you are over a barrel, the frames of the 14th call him an alien, Ark v. US made him a dual-citizen and the Bancroft Treaties are unenforceable.
Bancroft treaties are irrelevant. The framers of the 14th would call him a natural born citizen. They plainly stated so, each of them. It is Dufus Dale who does not understand that ordinary aliens owe allegiance to the US while in the US and foreign ambassadors and their families who do not.

Grow up! Child!

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#185060 Feb 8, 2014
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! You will deny it, but even you have stated that a NBC has only one allegiance!!! Go and deny it, then I will know what you are, like I didn't know! Hahahaha!!!!
Obama had only one allegiance per US law when born in Hawaii. To the US. British law and any other foreign law had no force or effect in the United States. Why is that so difficult for Dufus to comprehend?
Dale

Wichita, KS

#185061 Feb 8, 2014
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
We don't need world population growth at this point. 6000 BC God said. "Increase and multiply". In 2000 he said, "Enough already!"
LMAO!!! So, you are talking to God, now!!! Oh my!!! I guess we are in a world of shit!!!!

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#185062 Feb 8, 2014
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! At the moment of birth Obama's citizenship and allegiance was to his father's country and the US government can't strip that away, unless requested by him. This brings us back to the same old thing, a dual-citizenship is no better than a naturalized citizenship, neither are NBCs
Wrong. At the moment of birth, Obama's citizenship and allegiance was to the United States per US law. British citizenship law had no force or effect in Honolulu to overturn US citizenship law. Per US law his allegiance was to the US. Per British law, his allegiance was irrelevant as British law has no force in the United States.

Dale is simply wrong as he believes British law supersedes US law in the US. It doesn't Dufus.



wojar wrote:
<quoted text>The allegiance of a person born on US soil is to the US, regardless of foreign citizenship law, which has no force or effect within the US. What part of no force or effect cannot Dale comprehend?
Dale

Wichita, KS

#185065 Feb 8, 2014
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Obama had only one allegiance per US law when born in Hawaii. To the US. British law and any other foreign law had no force or effect in the United States. Why is that so difficult for Dufus to comprehend?
LMAO!!!“Nor can it be doubted that it is the inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship.” Ark v. US

Looks like we are back to the dual-citizenship, again!!!!

wojar, you can't win, the US hasn't the authority to strip a foreign citizenship, unless authorized under the naturalization process.

A dual-citizen/Naturalized citizen are on the same footing, allegiance is known for one and the other is questionable, for this neither are eligible to POTUS.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#185066 Feb 8, 2014
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! Only through treaties. Why, because all persons visiting your beautiful country are citizens of another country and that country has something to say about their treatment while they are in your country.
Sadly, Jacques, Dufus Dale is indeed insane. There is nothing in the US Constitution that says foreign law has any power to give aliens immunity to US law without the consent of the US.
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you insane? All foreigners inhabiting Canada, including Americans, come solely under Canadian jurisdiction. What treaties are you gibberishing about? The only way an American living in Canada could avoid Canadian jurisdiction would be for him/her to be a diplomat, covered by the Vienna Convention (Treaty). That is neither a U.S. nor Canadian treaty.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#185067 Feb 8, 2014
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! So, you are talking to God, now!!! Oh my!!! I guess we are in a world of shit!!!!
Where did you see me talking to God? Eh?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 min positronium 1,510,291
Give liberals a stroke! Fight for coal powered... 56 min Trump is the man 1
News Sessions: DOJ will crack down on federal grants... 59 min Trump is the man 1
News Scientists say they have proved climate change ... (Dec '08) 1 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 8,080
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 1 hr CrunchyBacon 105,074
Southern Ill will vote to expell Chicago From S... (Sep '15) 2 hr Peoria 5
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 3 hr SweLL GirL 10,506

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages